Talk:China/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Putonghua?

Nobody in English is using Putonghua to describe the official language of the PRC. Putonghua is a transcription of a Chinese word comparative to russkiy yazyk for 'Russian language'. I think Mandarin or Standard Mandarin is a better and more common name.--Wester (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That is what the cited PRC source (in English) says, and we aren't at all discussing the common name as it relates to an article title, where your argument would have more relevance. Since we are citing what is official, we ought to strictly adhere to what the official sources state. Using the [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] piping could create ambiguity, as "Mandarin" could also mean the dialect group, not what is officially promulgated. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 20:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Not only article titles should bear a common name. Also in the articles common names must be used. If the world is using Mandarin over Putonghua Wikipedia must follow. According to Google Mandarin or Standard Mandarin is 10x more common than Putonghua --Wester (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You are still not addressing my point of what the source uses. See policies on verifiability and reliable sources. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No, Putonghua is not the common name in English. In English it is sometimes just Chinese but more precisely Mandarin Chinese, and the official version is Standard Mandarin or Standard Chinese, or even Standard Mandarin Chinese. Go into any bookstore and look for books on the language, or look it up in an encyclopaedia, or even look at the names of articles here: we have a Standard Chinese and a Mandarin Chinese but no Putonghua (except for as a redirect).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you insist...then so be it. However, I never said it was the common name, and hopefully you would not think that any of my writing above implied that. On a side note, PTH, Guoyu (in the ROC), and Huayu (Singapore) are not equivalent and as Kwami noted on his talk, we may have a split in the future. In particular, Guoyu is much more rounded than PTH is because of Taiwan's linguistic make-up. Sorry if I am digressing. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 22:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

China's largest city?

The perennial dispute whether Chongqing may be treated as a city or not has erupted again.

Summary The dispute is whether Shanghai or Chongqing is the largest city (pop.) of the PRC. The main argument in favor of Chongqing as the "largest city" is that it is the largest administratively. The argument in favour of Shanghai is that in the PRC, a municipality is not the same as a city. Please leave your comments atTalk:Shanghai

BsBsBs (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Move of China to Chinese civilization, and China (disambiguation) to China

As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political_NPOV we have proposed moving China to Chinese civilization and China (disambiguation) to China. See the move request at Talk:China#Requested_move if you wish to comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

FAKE SOURCES USED IN ARTICLE - Change This Commie Propaganda!

Unproductive political ranting and nonsense

This sure is a nice commie puffpiece here. It's great to see that the dickheads at Wiki are locking me out of this edit, but graciously allowing Red China to promote themselves on Wikipedia with all these edits. I came to this page looking for a piece of information, then laughed my ass off when I read that, in the land of child labor and prison labor, people are getting paid $4,300 per year!!! This page has a fake source posted for this piece of misinformation. This source #132 is listed as: "China's economy surges 10.3% in 2010 (Xinhua), China Daily. 19 January 2011. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-01/20/content_11886732.htm." Let's keep in mind that right on the face of it, it is bogus. "China Daily" and ".cn" both mean that this is written by Red China. Not word one comes out of that place without the seal of approval by the commie dictators. Allowing this as a source is like allowing Jennifer Lopez' blog to be cited as a biographic news source for the Jennifer Lopez page. Not. Second, while this "news" article is cited as the source for "its per capita income of US$4,300", the article doesn't mention "per capita" OR "US$4,300"!!! Third, the article doesn't address income in any way. The reason this article was written was to celebrate the tremendous success of their Dear Leader's latest Five-Year Plan, to wit, "China launched a 4-trillion-yuan economic stimulus package two years ago in response to the international financial crisis." Can someone please delete this trash and lock the Reds out of this page? If they are doing as well as they are saying in this advertisement for themselves, then I think they can afford to pay for their own web hosting now.--208.127.100.156 (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC) There has never been a better opportunity to say "LOL U MAD?" on Wikipedia than now. Other than pointing the finger at "oh noes commies", how about you give us a better idea on how to write this page, without all the "lol reds on wikeepeediya" nonsense. So, you're saying that we shouldn't cite Xinhua, et cetera for information such as economic figures, recent and current events, and geographical information? Well then, what should we cite then? Amnesty International? falungong.org/GIB_MONIES_PLZ.htm? I've no idea of what you have written because to me it is incoherent faggotry that makes no sense at all, and proves that you know very little of what you are talking about. China does not have a dear leader, nor is China Daily logically comparable to some celebrity's blog (association fallacy). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I suggest this section is collapsed. Its clearly talking total nonsense - lets not forget the New York Times and BBC regularly use Xinhua as a source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No matter how much you don't like what I say, it is irrefutable. This article has fake statistics that are hiding behind phony sources. The "news" article cited as the source "per capita income of US$4,300" doesn't mention "per capita" OR "US$4,300". This needs to be removed.--208.127.100.156 (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the ref slightly, its true that the China Daily article doesn't mention per capita income. I added a ref to IMF article already used in infobox and since they are talking about GDP per-capita. I changed the wording to that. To the ranter, I'd suggest you look up the word irrefutable before using it next. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

To Metal.lunchbox, I understand the meanings of all my words, including irrefutable. I asserted 1) that the statement that Chinese per capita income was $4,300/year was a lie and 2) that the source given for it was fake (it didn't even mention "per capita" OR "US$4,300"). This is commonly done to avoid being flagged for using unsourced information, and it holds up until someone actually clicks the link and reads the source. I did just that and I exposed the lie and false support of it. I added additional editorial comment in order to offer a motivation as to why this was done in the first place, and added a complaint that those liars have a free hand on writing the page and I am locked out. You didn't refute it, you changed the text entirely, removing all references to personal income, and you removed the fake source. I was correct then and I am correct now. You defended the liars and cleaned up after them, and are ultimately protecting their practices. This is a very long article about 1.5 billion people to not even state the personal income of the people in it, which is very, very low. China has the lowest labor cost in the world, this is why all the manufacturing is moving there. The liars still have access to this article, and I am still locked out. --75.79.150.12 (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan vs People's Republic of China

I would like to suggest that more emphasis be put on how many people in Taiwan see themselves as a seperate identity from China. I feel like this article is biased in the aspect that it barely mentions Taiwan's struggle for independence, which I think is important for readers to understand. This will give readers a more thorough understand of the ROC because some believe that Taiwan belongs in it, others don't--this controversy is worthy of more notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.20.129.15 (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There are already a handful of articles dedicated to the issue - Political status of Taiwan, Legal status of Taiwan, Taiwan independence, Cross-strait relations... we don't need to add a whole plethora of duplicate information to the PRC article when existing information is available there. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Map of administrative divisions, has a typo

File:China_administrative.svg has a typo. Xinjiang is spelt as "Xingjiang". Maybe someone familiar with editing such files could update it. thanks Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. However, the map is still missing China's claimed and controlled territories within the nine-dotted line. Such an addition is more complicated than I can do, and should probably be referred to the graphic lab's map workshop when some complete maps showing China's South China Sea territories are found or created on Commons. Quigley (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Fake numbers for Chinese cities

Please have a look at this. There seem to be people who cannot stand the true size of Chinese cities. These edits give a reference, but the reference does not agree with the text. The cited data must be in the reference. This is not a case of two different source disagreeing. These entries have one source each, and the number does not agree with the source. This breaks all rules. The editor performs his own math. This is data manipulation to put it mildly. You can't say Shanghai has a population of 17,836,133 and point to a source that says the population is 23,019,148 - which is the correct count according to the 2010 census. BsBsBs (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment related to this article

There is an open request for comment at Talk:China#Primary topic of China which is related to the topic of this article:

 Is the People's Republic of China the primary topic of "China"? 

If you wish to join the conversation please do so on that page, not here. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Added ChinaRMarchive template

I created a template which I added to this talk page and the one at talk:China. It lists some of the previous move/merge discussions asking people to review them and policy before boldly proposing a new merge or move. It also provides a three sentence summary of the dispute. I hope that this will keep the debate from being too repetitive. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dab fixes

Can someone fix the infobox dabs for flag and emblem (Flag of the People's Republic of China and National Emblem of the People's Republic of China)? Thanx.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.224.253 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

File:CRH380A test, 28 Sep 2010.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:CRH380A test, 28 Sep 2010.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the image with a free-use image that I believe is better suited to the article. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

UN Membership

The introduction dates PRC's UN membership from 1971, but later in the article it says 1972. I'm reading a Kissinger memo from July 1971 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB66/ch-40.pdf) wherein he relates discussing UN admission with Chinese leadership, who do not seem to be in a hurry to join the UN, so I assume 1972 is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.135.107 (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

women missing in China

In the demographics section, the sentence "Recent studies suggest that over 40 million girls and women are 'missing' in China (Klasen and Wink 2003)" is not clear enough, should be something like this:

"The estimated total number of the missing females in the 20th century of the birth cohort between 1900 and 2000 is 35,59 million." see pdf page 21 in the source that is used in the article. Carry12q (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot edit because the article is protected.Carry12q (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Request the permissions at: Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I feel like the wording you provide is an improvement but it is somewhat difficult to understand and I would prefer to not use the word "missing". Perhaps, "For the population born between the years 1900 and 2000, it is estimated that there are 35.59 million fewer females than males." Is that still an accurate representation of the idea? - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 19:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the cited study goes further than just to point out that there are fewer females. It specifically keys in on excess girl child mortality. I think you sentence is a good start, but should include a reference to the main thrust of the paper, which is the often deliberate manipulation of the sex ratio. It helps give context as to why the ratio is off. 204.65.34.167 (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Much of this is already addressed in the preceding paragraphs and I have added a sentence derived from the same source about excessive female child mortality and some of its causes. I hope that this completes the picture. Have a look and tell me if any further changes are needed. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

History?

Can someone here enlighten me on why there's history of "Dynastic rule" section in the history as if the PRC is the legitimate sole successor of it? And why on earth would anyone put "Republic of China (1912–49)"? It just ruins the NPOV atmosphere we had awhile ago. Really boggles my mind..--LLTimes (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the way that other sources treat the subject. Read any popular history of China book and you'll see some imperial China, then the ROC (1912-1949), then the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949 and PRC history up to the present day. This is conventional and logical. The idea is to provide helpful general information so that our readers will get an overview of the relevant history. seems pretty WP:NPOV to me. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the history of China. If the PRC and China are merged, then it should be setup like that, but currently it isn't. The change was made by EreaserHead1 without gaining consensus first. T-1000 (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to gain explicit consensus before making edits. I for one strongly support the addition. There is no valid reason to not include history before 1949, that information is useful to the reader and it belongs on the page. The previous setup implies that the PRC appeared out of nowhere on October 1, 1949, not very helpful. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 22:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The history of China is also the history of the PRC; this is not just my opinion but the unanimous opinion of the relevant reference materials on China, as metal.lunchbox points out. Quigley (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A simple introduction towards the subject beforehand will help ease the confusions you are describing. You can talk a bit about Qing's transition to a Republic then civil war then to PRC establishment. However, I do not think adding massive amounts of history from China will help anything other than more arguments. Because then, we have to add the exact same history to ROC history section. Adding the history only in PRC's page not only ruins the NPOV aspect but also suggests that Republic of China already ended...which is not the case. --LLTimes (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add the same history to ROC, then that is your prerogative, but you should discuss that at Talk:Republic of China and not here. Adding ROC history to the PRC page does not suggest that the Republic of China already ended any more than the Pakistani history on Bangladesh suggests that Pakistan ended. Quigley (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that this discussion is the same one as the China talk page one, it is best to wait until the RM is closed first. T-1000 (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Your massive blanking changed the status of the page which was stable before the RM, so why don't (didn't) you wait until the RM is closed before trying to remove all that history? Quigley (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't stable as LLTimes objects to it, therefore Ereaserhead should have gain consensus first. But anyway, if there is no consensus to merge PRC and China, this page will remain solely about PRC and Ereaserheads edits will be reverted anyway. T-1000 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding ancient Chinese history to the PRC article is not the same thing as a merge (which would be PRC → China anyway), and is not dependent on a merge result. Quigley (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The opposition to it are the same (treating PRC as legitimate successor), therefore, it's the same debate, whether you like it or not. T-1000 (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

How does giving the history of how it formed legitimise it as a successor? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The question of legitimacy is completely irrelevant here. We're providing history, not making political declarations, if that history isn't convenient for some political views so be it, that is none of our concern. If you think that the RM should be resolved first then the history should be restored, as that was the stable version before the RM at Talk:China. Since everyone so far involved except, T-1000 appears to agree that the history should at least include the Republican era, there is clearly so far consensus not unanimity on the matter. also, that some information can be found elsewhere on wikipedia is not a valid rationale for blanking. Let's leave hypothetical future merge requests out of this and instead discuss whether or not the material should be included, based on this article as it is right now. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Move discussions go back to at least July, these changes were added on August 20. Hence, the stable version before the discussions is the one without Ereaserhead1's changes. T-1000 (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

In general the move discussions go back to the Precambrian, that doesn't account for the fact that the article needs to include a little history before October 1, 1949 and it doesn't. How is the reader supposed to understand the topic this way? - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 04:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am specifically talking about this discussion, which was started in June of 2011 by Ereaserhead1. The previous discussion were in March 2010. The article was stable and people didn't have trouble understanding it for 1 and 1/4 years. T-1000 (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you are suggesting that no further improvements can be made to this article. Maybe we should have it fully protected then. It should include some history like reliable sources do (here's an example). You can talk about whatever move discussion you want but this article could be improved with the addition of some history and there's no reason it shouldn't. And there are others like myself who agree explicitly that it should be done. Only you stand in the way for some reason. Let's move on shall we. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with you is that you don't read past discussions. The difference between the regime and the land/Civilization is a controversial matter that have come up again and again during past discussions. The analogy of "US vs. America" and "ROC/Japan vs. Taiwan" has been used. You can disagree, but you must realize that a dispute exist. Telling people not to "stand in the way" is pointless, since I am pretty sure the opposers feel the same way about you. T-1000 (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I'm sure that the discussion will be more productive if we stick to content and policy and avoid commenting on individual editors. I have not read all previous discussions and I am not going to. Consensus can change. This isn't the Supreme Court of the United States where previous decisions are binding precedent. If you look at the current discussion on this issue which is what matters, you will see that the participants other than yourself all agree that the history section should be expanded. Just stating that there is a controversy is not an argument, if you think the history section should not be expanded for some good reason then it is up to you to form a meaningful argument, ideally making some reference to more than just your own opinion. The People's Republic of China is commonly known as "China", so PRC history books and articles are often labelled as "History of China" or some variation. It is extremely uncommon for them to start on October 1, 1949. It should be obvious why that is not common. On Wikipedia we tend to have histories which go back beyond the current official name of the country, see Republic of Ireland(1801), South Korea (2333 BCE), United Kingdom (about 30,000 years ago), and United States (12,000-40,000 years ago) for instance. I will admit that this is somewhat complicated semantically by own current insistence on using the official name instead of the common name for this article but the issue is really quite simple, we need to extend the history a bit to provide better context. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added some content to the history section which I hope will be accepted as a valid compromise. I have summed up 221 BC to the Taiping rebellion in 2 short sentences. There's a an explanation of the collapse of the Qing dynasty and there for the end of Imperial China, Then the Republican era which explains whah the ROC is where the PRC regime might have come from, the Civil War, second sino-japanese war, etc. Without this kind of content there just isn't an effective summary. The PRC regime didn't descend from Heaven on the eve of October 1, 1949, so we have to give some background if the reader is to understand. Again other sources do the same thing. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 00:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning pre-1949 stuff should be limited to the 1920s communist party or the struggles the members had during the ROC era. Anything before that wouldn't fit into the History of the People's Republic of China, let alone the frontpage People's Republic of China. Benjwong (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're unwilling to accept Metal lunchbox's compromise, maybe we should start a RfC for community comment on whether the history section should include dynastic and republican history. Quigley (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that T-1000's point in general is a valid one, that the extend of the history depends on the scope of the article and there is a larger process in the works refocus the scope of the article with respect to other top-level china-related articles like China. I strongly disagree that such a process means we can't include any history prior to 1949, but eventual decisions about moving or merging the article to China will directly affect the history. This is to say that it seems logical to address the bigger issue of the scope of the history, should it be limited to the events leading up to the establishment of the PRC and after or should it be a summary of chinese history up to the present, should be addressed in this larger discussion at Talk:China and not through RfC. RfC's on China-related topics become arguments about abstract political issues, a mess to avoid if possible. I am, however willing to be convinced that an RfC is useful here. The compromise that I proposed accepts that for better or for worse the scope of the article is currently limited, but the reader just needs a little background. What Benjwong is proposing is basically the same, just much more restricted. The question that I have is why. Why is it so important that we do not include any information about the collapse of imperial China and the process that lead to the establishment of the PRC on Oct 1 1949? We're inclusive with most other topics why does this one have to be so strictly defined? I would prefer that we have a compromise that we can accept as an improvement even if its not ideal. Nothing is permanent and this is just one step in the right direction. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 21:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Benjwong's proposal is unlike yours in that he wants to start the PRC with the history of the CPC; ergo, the PRC is an acultural, ahistorical, temporary tyrannical interruption to the ROC, which is the true heir of the title of China. With a RfC, it would be recognized that these fringe, absolutist views preventing the PRC from claiming any Chinese cultural history are exactly that. Quigley (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that, I just find these RfC's very unpleasant and was hoping that there was a chance we'd form a consensus around the compromise version that I've put together and move on from there as I think that would save us all a lot of grief. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 01:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The pre-1949 section is deviating too far from what matters. A 221BCE unification or Taiping heavenly kingdom does not have more impact in PRC establishment than nanking massacre for example. If you mention anything having to do with imperial China, it should go no further back than late Qing. Somewhere around May 4th movement is really where to draw the line. It would even be a good idea to get the history of the People's Republic of China article going before having a pre-1949 section on the frontpage at all. Benjwong (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing further back than the late Qing but two short sentences which just give minimal context to a subsequent discussion of the collapse of Imperial China leading to revolution, aftermath, and eventually the establishment of the PRC. What's the harm in that? It can certainly be improved but we shouldn't be so restrictive as to exclude any mention of events prior to 1919 as you are now suggesting. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 00:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your justification for adding the brief pre-1949 section to history, but my concern is that there's very little reference provided, and whole paragraphs of text go unreferenced. Would you mind adding them, especially for potentially controversial statements like Qing engaged in imperialistic expansion into Central Asia in the 19th century? Zanhe (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The section definitely needs sourcing and copy-editing, but I wasn't going to do all of that if the whole section was going to be summarily deleted. I've copied most of it from a previous edit which was blanked. Maybe certain parts could also be improved by using more of a summary style, with less detail, while other parts might need a little expansion. I'm not just going to leave this work up to everyone else but I don't want to go to all the trouble just to see the section immediately blanked as it was before. Maybe someone can reassure me that there is in fact consensus to keep the material and so any blanking will be reverted. If so then we can move on and bring the section up to standards. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 18:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Is not an issue of source or standard. It just needs to reduce to only events that have direct effect on the foundation of the PRC. Benjwong (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that the material needs bringing up to standards, and that can't really be done if its going to be deleted, I would support further compromise ( a more restricted scope for pre 1949 history) in order to put aside this discussion for now and continue to improve the article. The thing is, its not just me and Benjwong in this discussion. So I might not be staking out a compromise that everyone agrees to, so speak up. In order to better match with the suggestion of Benjwong I'm proposing to edit the section to minimise content prior to the May 4th movement. The collapse of the Qing would still be there but as a very brief summary instead of the detailed paragraphs we have now. How about a single brief paragraph for 221BC to 1919. We need to mention that Imperial China existed, that the Qing dynasty collapsed and was toppled in 1911-12 with the Revolution establishing the ROC and then we can get into the parts of the Republican era which are uncontroversially directly and clearly related to the establishment of the PRC. Do we support this or should we move ahead with what is already in the section? I think what's there is a little more to work with and is helpful to the reader but I'm willing to make a compromise if that will help. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 07:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

221BC is so far back. Is like an article on president Obama, but somehow need to mention George Washington. It just looks like over-doing it. If you want to do a few rounds of minimize cleanup please do. I likely won't edit this for a long while. Benjwong (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just a single line about the beginning of Imperial China. The rest of it is from the 19. century and forward. The history section of the United States article starts at the migration of the Native Americans to the continent more than 10,000 years ago, even though the modern state did not exist until less than 250 years ago. So I would say the current solution is pretty much the bare minimum of what you would expect in terms of previous history.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The history section definitely needs expanding with at least a paragraph or two on pre 1800 history like basically every other country article. If we don't want to include all the content from China to include a significant portion of it. If the ROC article needs more history too go for it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

With the article now titled "China", it's now unambiguous that the scope of the section should match other histories labeled as "History of China" that is to say, it needs expansion. I do not, however believe that we need to copy content over from History of China. We must stick to summary style to avoid the history section dwarfing the rest of the article. I'd like to work on this but I'm gonna wait to see how the big changes shape up, It seems likely that we'll have a viable merge request. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Chinese for China

Can someone please add, in the first sentence right after the word China I would have thought (as is common practice for articles on countries), the Chinese for "China" (possibly with a link to somewhere where the inevitable complications are discussed)?--Kotniski (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Chinese for "China" is easier said than done. There is no one word. The most general would be "中国". I'll try to address this in an appropriate way. Thanks for bringing this up. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, in the meantime I tried doing it myself (using information from Names of China). Would be good if you could take a look and correct if necessary.--Kotniski (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Why duplicate the name in traditional characters, which makes it lengthy and confusing? The box at the top of this talk page points to this proposal, referencing this talk page archive, where there doesn't seem to be a consensus. In fact, the dictum to always provide both traditional and simplified—which is only ever really enforced against simplified subjects, like this one—seems to be entirely the opinion of User:Jiang (His reasoning: "Even if traditional readers can somehow decipher simplified, some may find the communist font repulsive.") Since this article is about the PRC, I've removed them. Quigley (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to do the same but you beat me to it. The language box to the right provides all kinds of transcriptions of the name, including traditional chinese. This is just a quick note about the local name and since traditional characters aren't often used in the PRC its not worth the extra length to include them. The gain in readability far outweighs the hypothetical loss of ... inclusiveness. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 07:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not even sure we need that language box, it seems to rather overdo it. The official language is Chinese (Mandarin), written in simplified script. Details of different scripts and languages should be kept to the main names article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Tibetan, Zhuang and Mongol are official languages of the (PR of) China. This is dictated by law as well as convention. I think the language box should stay as it is. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

They're official languages in some autonomous regions, but not of the country as a whole. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The namebox isn't hurting anyone or doing any harm, and it is better to include information than to exclude it. Plus, removing the minority language names is Han-centric in a sense, and might imply to readers that China is ethnically homogenous, to which it is certainly not. The Renminbi notes, list the main minority languages, among other things; the Resident Identity Cards in minority areas officially use the 5 main minority languages as well. Comparatively, the article at Singapore uses its Tamil name, and within Singapore Tamil is even printed everywhere, on street signs and public locator maps, even though less than 4% of the population actually speak Tamil. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't see minority languages in Russia, India, Vietnam, United States or Mexico articles, and China is certainly much more homogenous than those countries(in fact with over 90% one ethnic group China is more homogenous than most World's countries). That box should be removed.Shared32d (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a large box that stretches far down the page (in my monitor) and could be replaced by much better items, such as another image in history. It wouldn't imply China is ethnically homogenous any more than only having English in Australia implies Australia is ethnically homogenous. In fact, the absence wouldn't imply anything at all. I haven't seen a similar box on any country article. Note that Singapore has four official languages, of which Tamil is one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's uniform with Republic of China, which also uses Template:Chinese to represent it's official name(s) in various languages and scripts. As for "taking up space", it looks fine on my 1366x768 resolution display, and I'm sure that others view it fine as well. I don't see why we should sacrifice things for those using older hardware; a Steampowered hardware survey showed that 22.59% of Steam users have 1920x1080 displays and 18.29% had 1690x1050 displays; very few people had displays smaller than 1024x768. Sure, this survey isn't a complete population sample, but it is significant. It's like saying "we shouldn't use Chinese script in articles, because East Asian language support without plugins is only possible for those on post Windows XP machines, and some people might still be using Windows 98". As for usage within China, I think that the usage of Mongol, Tibetan, Uyghur and Zhuang is very important, otherwise, why would they be used on RMB banknotes nationwide? Why not just that particular AR? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Then I'd suggesting removing it from that article too. Giving every romanisation is unnecessary and overdetailed for either article. China has one official language and script, and I doubt Taiwan is really any different. That's all that is needed for a summary on the country.

I assure you I have a modern computer, the point is that it stretches down into lower sections unnecessarily. All the way into post 1949 history for me right now. We use chinese characters where appropriate and informative sure, but we don't overdo it. This infobox is almost trivia in its importance to the country. And don't ask me to fathom the minds of Chinas leaders. All I know is that the other scripts remain unofficial nationally, and the other romanisations are definitely rare at best within China. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually think that an infobox with "China" spelled in different local languages will fit nicely into the section on the etymology of the word "China", once it gets moved to this article. Although it might be more relevant if it shows how "China" is spelled, instead of how "People's Republic of China" is spelled. That way it would (presumably) also get a bit smaller.TheFreeloader (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The etymology section

The etymology section needs some loving attention. I just moved it in from Chinese civilization and there are a few important problems with it. It needs to be rewritten as a summary. There's an entire article devoted to the subject we don't need to include every hypothesis about the origin of the word china in this article. We should devote even less space to the explanations of the Chinese names. A clear and concise summary is appropriate. I will attempt to make this change but it would be best if someone could clean up after me. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 19:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Much of the politics could also be summarised if it must stay. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I've completed the summarizing I had in mind, so if anyone wants to check my work and clean up a bit or adjust the language/organization, that would be much appreciated. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the word origin stuff that you cut out. My sense is that there was a great of interest in this material, certainly more than in Cold War political phrases. It seems relevant that the Sanskrit word for China pre-dates the commonly given explanation for it. Kauffner (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The good news is that no deletion or addition of material is permanent. There's a lot of interesting information about the origin of the names, the point of the edits I made was to reduce the section to a concise summary. I include stuff about "Red China" because that's a word the reader might stumble across, so it's relevant. If you have a better version go for it. I just suggest you try to stick with summary-style as much as practical. A lot needs to be re-written on this page and its getting a lot of attention from editors so WP:BEBOLD, just try to provide an explanation for major edits that aren't obvious. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The History section

Not very long ago this article had a history section which began at 1949. That is clearly no longer appropriate and there is a discussion above about this. I added some stuff, mostly copied from other pages, which I intended to serve as an outline. The entire history prior to 1912 needs to be re-written in a summary style using proper sources. A quick look at the article will show this to be the weakest section. It needs to cover the history at least as far back as the Yellow Emperor all the way up to the revolution, but we have to be careful that the history section doesn't swallow the rest of the article. Over the next several days I'll be working on this and I hope there will be others active there too. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I won't revert again, so I'll explain my first one. The information copied over from the former China article is massive and unsourced. I don't want history to start at 1949 at all, in fact I argued for adding history when this was still at its PRC title. However, as said above, I don't want it to overwhelm the article. We're providing a summary article. Yes, China's history is extraordinarily long in terms of recorded events, but someone looking to delve into that will go to the main history page. All that's needed is a basic overview that quickly shows the reader how China developed to this point. And due to the long history of China, it's going to have to be very basic, as trying to add a little more information for each dynasty or century will have a huge knockon effect.

In the meantime, I'm going to make sure all the information here (even the unsourced parts) are present on the main history article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't even think the history section as it is now is that long. If you compare it with the history section of the France article or the United States article, I actually think it's a bit shorter. It is a problem that the history section currently isn't that well sourced. But I think it's better to have some unsourced history than nothing at all.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Just about every section in France is massively overbloated, so that's not a good comparison. The United States (a good article, so better than France to compare to) history section I've always thought too long, but even if it wasn't, it only takes up four lengths of my screen, whereas what we have here takes up five lengths of my screen and is basically unsourced. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The length of the history section of featured country articles vary, but the history section is usually one of the largest sections. Many of the other sections can be trimmed first. Quigley (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think comparing it to the United States is fair... The history of the United States is relatively shorter in span compared to that of China. A main country article should cover the basic idea of that country's history, and have further detail in a separate history article; I don't see how excluding 2,000+ years of history and starting from the 19th Century satisfies a "basic idea" of Chinese history. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't expect the History section to be perfect today. Writing a good summary of 5,000 years of history with proper sourcing is not an easy task, and it won't be done in one shot. Earlier there was some back and forth reverting between a very long version and a very short version, but neither of them is up to standards. Either will be good as a starting point, but we have to settle on one and move on. The article currently uses the long version and I think that will be a more productive starting point, so we should stick with it. In general I think its a little too long and not adequately sourced but fixing that will probably be easier than starting from scratch. Also, in the mean time its nice for readers to have a complete history to look at, even if its poorly sourced, and a little too long. The other one reads "In 221 BCE Qin Shi Huang unified China, then in the late 19th century...", okay so that's not an actual quote but you get the point. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you mention Qin Shi Huang... the current article states "The first unified Chinese state was established by Qin Shi Huang of the Qin state in 221 BC". While this is a widely stated concept (much like the "5000 year history") it is unclear what it means (much like the "5000 year history). Was there a concept of China prior to 221 that consisted of separate states? Did those states recognize each other as "Chinese" as opposed to other states around them that were not recognized as being Chinese? Or did he unify some states with the result that those states were from then on called "Chinese"? For the statement to have any factual meaning to the user, it needs to be explained. Readin (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

These statements are conventional and can be found all the secondary sources. But a Chinese state and culture already existed under the Shang, a thousand years before the Qin. Qin Shi Huang is often called "the first emperor". This is a free translation of his Chinese name, which can be more accurately translated as "First emperor of Qin." There were certainly Chinese emperors before Qin Shi Huang. As for "5000 years of history," this has more to with numerology than with anything that happened 5,000 years ago. Kauffner (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Marking any date as the beginning of China is problematic. The name 中国 (zhongguo) was used as far back as the Zhou dynasty but that use of the word is probably better translated as the "central states". Those states were unified into a chinese empire by Qin Shi Huang. Anyways the whole thing section needs to be rewritten as it is mostly unsourced, not completely accurate, and needs general copy-editing. We might want to mention 5000 years by stating that "it is often said that China has 5000 years of continuous history." instead of trying to stake a direct claim in WP voice. Given the state of the history section I recommend everyone be WP:BOLD. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 04:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

We could gradually incorporate references into that largely unreferenced history section as we go, amending information where fit. Currently the situation here is messy due to the sudden changes; once things start to settle down, then we can focus on the quality of the article, and perhaps bring it to a standard fit enough for a GA nomination. As for now, the history section seems okay enough; Rome wasn't built in a day, and it'll take time for the article contents to adjust. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Restore China to PRC!

Nobody refers to PRC as China! We all know the real China is Taiwan, FREE TIBET!!!

Republic of China hatnote

How could anyone read this article and get confused with the Republic of China? If they don't know what the ROC is called they will go to Taiwan. If not it seems unbelievably unlikely that they would come here.

Obviously if this article is moved to "China" that changes and this would have to be reverted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I have tended to agree with you on a lot of China related controversies but I have to admit that the "Republic of China" a name which one might come across in popular sources is so very similar to the "People's Republic of China" that a hatnote seems appropriate. I look at WP:NAMB and don't know whether guidelines say we need a hatnote or not in this case. Seems like a close call, but I'm putting my tentative vote in for "keep". - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's wait for the move request to be completed. Then I might seek a third opinion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is now moot. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity (following up on my comment above), I concur that this issue is moot after the move. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I just removed all but what's there now: it was far too long and unclear, defeating the purpose of the hatnote which is anyone getting here by mistake via PRC or China can easily see where to find the page they were after via either Dab page. As per WP:RELATED related topics should go in the article: in the body text, in their own sections with a {{main}} link or in the 'See also' section as appropriate, though both already appear in the introduction so probably nothing else needs to be added.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I see it's been restored. Again the point of the hatnote is not to link to related articles. The hat note quickly becomes too unwieldy and difficult to read, especially as there's no limit on what could be added (why not also "mainland China"?). As per WP:RELATED related topics should be included in the body of the article, where it can be made clear how they are related. Topics with a very similar name should be added to the disambiguation page or pages. Those should appear in the hatnote, but anything else is excessive and defeats the purpose of the hat notes.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you participated in the discussions, but I think the somewhat extensive hatnote was a part of the compromise made when this page was moved to it's current title. A lot of the opposition against the move centered around the view that if this article was called "China", readers would not be properly informed about the (alleged) dispute over the meaning of the term "China", especially in relation to the cross-strait relations. So the hatnote is there to try to solve that problem in way which gives due weight to the different positions in that dispute. It was suggested during the discussions that the hatnote could be made into an expandable one, so as not clutter up the article too much. I must say I would prefer it if each of the hatnotes could be contained within one line.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I anticipate these articles evolving to eliminate the need for such a hatnote. Two things in particular. Chinese Civilization may be eliminated with the idea that its contents are more suitable in a variety of related articles where they have a more logical context such as History of China, Culture of China, and China. Second the ROC article may be split into a history article at Republic of China (1912-1949) and the remainder of the ROC article which will focus more on the modern state commonly known as "Taiwan". This would eliminate the need for the part of the hatnote about controlling China from 1912-1949 as this article's history section would include a summary of that 1912-1949 article and a Main link at the head of the section. Then the hatnote could focus on the current Republic of China in a clear and concise manner. I think that would be ideal but we are not there yet. In the mean-time I think its appropriate to keep the hatnote, as consensus appeared to support it in our previous discussions about what would happen after the PRC article was moved to "China". - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 20:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I did participate at the start, but largely left it alone after !voting and making a couple of comments. Reviewing the discussion since then I see there are a few suggestions on including a hatnote but no real discussion. An 'expandable hatnote' is suggested but I'm not sure what is meant by that. Someone pointed to the examples of Italy, Egypt, Germany, India] but they are all much shorter, much more like the version I changed it to, with one or two links, all but one of them to DAB pages.

There are links to the ROC in the article and on the DAB page, so users will have no problems finding the ROC article. The proper place to describe any dispute is in the article or articles; only there can it be given appropriate weight, and the nature of the dispute properly described: in the case of the ROC it's far more complex than a simple dispute over the name. Attempting to even partly address this in the hatnote leads to a very unwieldy hatnote, as is now there: it should fit on one line, so with the 'PRC' hatnote there are only two lines.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think given the history a reasonably extensive hatnote to the ROC article is fair enough. Given the move the civilisation article needs one too as people might well want to see that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't argue with most of what you say, JohnBlackburne, but only point out that as wordy as the current hatnote is, its not actually all that long. Thankfully, the hatnote does not attempt to explain cross-strait relations as that would require more text than is appropriate for such a note. I'd prefer a slightly shorter hatnote eventually but its not actually a big problem, just slightly more text than the normal hatnote. An 'expandable hatnote' would just be a collapsible wikitable collapsed by default. I think generally the best way to address the issue of cross-strait relations is with a summary-style section in the body of the article with a Main link at the top. Though we'll probably find that consensus also supports some kind of disabmig hatnote for the Republic of China as well. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 21:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'given the history'. If you mean the history of China and Taiwan, that is not the purpose of a hatnote. As well as WP:RELATED see also Wikipedia:Hatnote#Legitimate information about the topic: "Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself". It does not belong in the hatnote. The length issue is that the italic formatting which makes it stand out also makes it difficult to read. A word or a few words of italics is not too bad, especially as most hatnotes are fairly consistent so vary little. Doing something so different in size and content makes it much less clear and so less useful.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Because of the very recent move we would appear to need a link to Chinese civilization. Obviously we need a China (disambiguation) link. and ROC link is a compromise meant to satisfy the desires of a group of editors active on this page and who participated in the move discussion. Do you agree that we need these three links in the hatnote? If so, maybe you can propose an alternative text which is more concise? - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 22:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see though that a move requires such a hatnote; I can't see any discussion in the move process, just a few proposals, some with examples as I mentioned before, some suggesting an expandable one (still not sure what that is - does anyone know of any page using one?) among the many for move/against move points. No real discussion or clear consensus on which is best or what the content should be.

Once a move is done it is noted on the talk page (there was a note at the top of this page on past move discussions which should be updated) and on policy pages, and of course in archives, but not on article pages. There is no need to link to previous articles that were here, except very often as here the names are related so they are connected through the Dab page, as is Republic of China. The topics are also related so there are links on the page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, let's see what other editors have to say about this. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 23:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with JohnBlackburne; the hatnote is for navigational confusion, not history, which is already explained in the lead and rest of the article. For the hatnote's contents, China (disambiguation) is a given, Chinese civilization should be there just for a little while, to give editors time to adjust themselves and their wikilinks, and Republic of China should not be there at all because that article's primary focus is on Taiwan. Some other article that deals primarily with historical China, not Taiwan today, such as History of the Republic of China or Republic of China (1912-1949) is a more appropriate choice if you want a third link. Quigley (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added a notice about the recent move at the top of the talk page for both articles as per JohnBlackburne's statement above. I wouldn't mind keeping the hatnote link for a couple of days while though to deal with temporary confusion. History belongs in the history section which currently needs significant work. as for the relevant history of ROC links I have recommended that the current ROC article's pre 1949 history be split off into a new Republic of China (1912-1949) article which would allow for easy summary-style inclusion here, instead of awkward linking and explanation in hatnote. see discussion . - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 05:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the civilisation link needs to be kept until that article is folded into other articles or a year or so. There will be a lot of external and internal broken links for which people may want to view that article.

Under the spirit of compromise given the fact that we had this situation with having the China civilisation page here for so long means at least within the community there is confusion. Ireland has a hatnote to Northern Ireland even though there is no real legitimate confusion of those terms. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 05:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems the hatnote to the ROC was removed after our discussion, only to be readded and tinkered with to leave three lines. Again the point of a hatnote is to help readers who end up at an article via search or a redirect get to the article they were actually looking for, via a direct link if there is only one such article or via a disambiguation page or pages if there are many. It is not for related topics, which should be mentioned in the body of the article: in the lead if they are important or prominent topics such as the ROC.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming Conventions being revised

Many of the discussions on this page seem related to usage of the terms "China", "People's Republic of China", "Taiwan", "Republic of China", etc. as well as the naming of China-related articles. There is currently an ongoing discussion about revising the relevant naming conventions. Some of you may be interested to see what's been done so far and contribute to the process at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Using the name "China" instead of the "People's Republic of China". - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

does it hit anyone that revise the primary article title page as "China" seem more eerily 'normal'... LOL I'm like... this should have been done a long time ago, I feel those people who make a big deal about it are POV pushers because so long as ROC is mentioned as a claimant to the title, then it's hardly POV, but reflective of practical common usage of China...Phead128 (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

First words of introduction

The big move was undertaken because supporters said many uninformed readers refer to the PRC when they say China, so to facilitate their finding what they want, "China" now takes them to the People's Republic of China. Hence the article name now says China. The move was not undertaken, however, to suggest that China can only mean the People's Republic of China. There is nuance in China = PRC.

• China = PRC. Most of the time? Maybe.
• China = PRC. Always? No.

In order to respect that nuance and make the move somewhat tenable, the lede should begin with The People's Republic of China, commonly known simply as "China", is . . . Rather than "China, officially known as the People's Republic of China." The latter gives the misimpression that China can only mean the PRC (that the PRC is the official name of China). The former says the PRC is commonly known as China without ruling out other possibilities for China. Having brought the uninformed readers to the right page, I think we should inform them of the nuances rather than to perpetuate their misperception.

ContinentalAve (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A note at the top of the article clearly says: This article is about the modern state in East Asia. For other uses, see China (disambiguation). Historical regimes called "China" and the ROC are discussed in this article anyway. "China" is a much more common (and no less incorrect) name for this state than "People's Republic of China", and it is the title of this article, so "China" should be first. Quigley (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's worded the way it is because this article is about "China" the country which is today officially known as the "People's Republic of China". There may be other China's, which is why users are directed to China (disambiguation) before anything else in the article, but this article is not about those "Chinas". It is not implied that the term "China" can't refer to other things. The first sentence with "China" first is nothing more than the application of a consistent WP convention, which is described at WP:LEDE. As you may have noticed the article's scope has been broadened slightly since the move to beyond the confines of the strictest notions of the "People's Republic of China". - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 21:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

But there is another modern state in East Asia called China, that is not in the article's fact box. The dangling third-line statement, Not to be confused with the Republic of China, commonly called "Taiwan". just compounds the confusion. Is the Republic of China, commonly called Taiwan, (a) not a modern state or (b) not in East Asia? You need to revise the first clarification statement to say something like:

• This article is about the modern state in East Asia, which is widely recognized to be the sole legitimate modern state of China and which claims in whole, the Republic of China on Taiwan. For other uses, see China (disambiguation).

Even then, in my opinion, the article should still start with the official name of the PRC. The article title merely is designed to help users locate the article. The first words they read should start to clarify for them, the precise thing that they have found. The thing that they have found rules mainland China, claims to rule all of China, is widely recognized to be the sole ruler of China, but does not rule all of China. Hence China does not always mean PRC. But PRC always means China.

Also on the precision point, the Bill Clinton article is entitled Bill Clinton but begins with William Jefferson Clinton, his official name. In that instance the two are exactly identical and the editors went with the greater precision in the lede. ContinentalAve (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of hatnotes is to help with disambiguation. There are no other "modern states" which are regularly referred to as "China", so as far as I can tell, the first hatnote uniquely identifies the topic.. I don't see the need to expand the hatnote further, as you have suggested.

As for the first sentence, biographies have their own conventions, and aren't particularly relevant; a better analogy is Germany, whose first sentence is "Germany, officially the Federal Republic of Germany..". Mlm42 (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ContinentalAve, and would like to note that articles with title X don't have to begin with "X..." and in fact are often opened by "Full name, commonly [also] known as X...".

Mlm42, you only listed one parallel. Our article on the UK begins with its full name (UK of GB and N Ireland), which is far more rarely used than either "PRC", "the PRC" or "the People's Republic". I feel that is not necessary, because "the UK" and its full name are wholly equivalent terms, whereas "China" and the PRC are not—Do admit at least this fact.

Quigley, I daresay that the bold contrast between the DAB header and the first line can be confusing to some readers. The former very clearly implies that "China" is not simply the PRC, whereas the latter is quite delimiting.  The Tartanator  18:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The DAB header and the first line actually complement each other. The header points out that this article is about the modern state in East Asia. Therefore, the first sentence of this article will talk about only this use of "China", not all the uses of "China" as listed in China (disambiguation). This is the only practical way to start the article, because otherwise this page would become a disambiguation page, with "China could mean a state in East Asia, or ceramics, or a song by Red Rockers..." Quigley (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, this isn't just the article about the PRC anymore. It's also the article about country China in a historical sense. I think there was a pretty clear consensus in the move discussion that when this move went through, the scope of this article had to be expanded to cover the subject "China" throughout all of its history. Therefore it gets the article off on completely the wrong foot to indicate that this is mainly an article about the People's Republic of China.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"...will talk about only this use of 'China'": then the first bold term ought to be the true name of this state.

I think the content should speak for itself. In no sensible way can I imagine that the first sentence alone determines the scope of an article. However, since it is part of text, it is equating the two terms China and PRC in text which has certainly not been agreed to.  The Tartanator  11:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"But there is another modern state in East Asia called China" - The other state is only rarely called that and then only to make a political point, not because people really mean that it is China. Since we're comparing other articles - consider Grass which begins with "Grasses, or more technically graminoids". It doesn't start with "Graminoids, commonly known as grasses". According to your logic it should, because "Grass" is also used for hemp, and hemp is not a graminoid, so not all grasses are graminoids. Readin (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox: "Official language"

I think that the current state of the article infobox may not effectively reflect the situation. The issue is, unlike English, Chinese distingishes spoken language (语) from written language (文), and realistically speaking, even in practice the two are not the same. Many official PRC sources note that the official language of China is "Chinese", though for our purposes of creating an in-depth encyclopedia this may not be precise or accurate enough. However, realistically speaking the official spoken language of China is Standard Chinese (i.e. the regulated dialect of Mandarin Chinese based on the Beijing dialect), and the official written language is Vernacular Chinese.

Why might this be such an issue, might you ask? Well, Vernacular Chinese is used as a lingua franca regardless of spoken dialect. In Hong Kong, many people do not speak any variety of Mandarin, and some even have zero knowledge of Mandarin, however they formally write in Vernacular Chinese, which has vocabulary and grammar completely different from spoken Cantonese (see List of diglossic regions#Chinese). Native speakers of Standard Cantonese are also "native writers" of Vernacular Chinese (if that makes sense), and in formal and semi-formal situations Vernacular Chinese is the only accepted form of written communication in Hong Kong (Written Cantonese is used informally, such as SMS, instant messaging, blogging, songs, etc), and this applies to other dialects as well, such as Shanghainese and Taiwanese Hokkien. If a kid from Hong Kong arrived home, he would say to his mother "今日嘅晚飯我已經食咗喇" (Gam1yat6 ge3 maan5faan6 ngo5 ji3ging1 sik6zo2 la3; "I've already eaten today's dinner") via his mouth, but if she was absent and he had to handwrite a note, he would write "今天的晚飯我已經吃過了". Vernacular Chinese is based on the grammar of Modern Standard Mandarin (as opposed to Classical Chinese being based on Old Chinese grammar from the Qin Dynasty), however you do not need knowledge of how to speak Mandarin to write Vernacular Chinese.

Many people do not speak Standard Mandarin as their first language. Some might not even speak Standard Mandarin at all; one such example is my grandmother on my mother's side, who speaks a Shandong dialect of Mandarin that is partially incomprehensible to me, and another example is my grandmother on my father's side, who speaks a Hunan dialect of Mandarin that sounds nothing like Standard Mandarin (she pronounces 飞机 feiji like 灰鸡 huiji, 肉 rou like 弱 ruo, and 老奶奶 laonainai as loh-leh-leh). Yet, these people can communicate fine with others via writing.

Currently the infobox reads "Official language(s): Mandarin (or Putonghua)". The problem is, you cannot write in Putonghua; you write in Vernacular Chinese. Unlike the United States, United Kingdom, Germany or France, where we could just write "Official language: English/French/German" in the infobox, since English is not distinguished between written and spoken forms, we cannot do the same here.

TL;DR, the current state of the infobox is bad, what should we do? I personally think we should write that the official spoken language is "Mandarin (Putonghua)" and the official written language is Vernacular Chinese. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国 Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó
Official languages	Mandarin
Recognised regional languages	Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur, Zhuang, and various others
Official writing form	Vernacular Chinese
Official script	Simplified Chinese
ISO 3166 code	CN

That sounds right to me, although no doubt I'm less knowledgable than you are on this. I would actually remove the bracketed putonghua, as that's not going to clarify anything to english speakers at all. On a side note, would it be better to clarify Mandarin as "Standard Mandarin" or something similar? Anyway, I've created a mockup here, leaving Mandarin as the official language, but naming Vernacular Chinese as the writing form. The new codable language fields makes this possible. However, I can't get rid of the line without removing the regional languages field, which I'm not sure would gain consensus. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally like how a few linguists call it "Modern Standard Mandarin" (MSM), as I've read in a few papers. However, the article at Standard Chinese used to be located at Standard Mandarin, but it was moved following a Requested Move, since it was argued that Standard Chinese was the WP:COMMONNAME (similarly, Taiwanese Minnan was moved to Taiwanese Hokkien, and something happened to Yue Chinese as well, I forgot). I was originally thinking along the lines of "Official language(s): Spoken language: Mandarin (Putonghua)<br>Written language: Vernacular Chinese" or something, but because we have to adhere to the template format (which isn't very flexible), that might not be possible. as for "(Putonghua)", I guess that's to differentiate between "regulated" Mandarin (i.e. Standard Chinese) and the 20 other regional variants of Mandarin (Northeastern Mandarin, Tianjin dialect, etc) since "Putonghua" essentially means "common language". I can guess why those who originally modified the infobox didn't have a direct unpiped link to Standard Chinese, probably because they thought that most people would have no idea what that means, and "Mandarin" would be a more laymen-friendly, easier-to-understand way to put it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

China/Archive 11
Recognised regional languages	Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur, Zhuang, and various others
Official spoken language	Mandarin
Official written language	Simple Vernacular Chinese

Putonghua means common language in Chinese (well, in Putonghua), but when used in English it is used as the Chinese translation of Mandarin, and thus doesn't really give any extra meaning to the usage. What could be done is combining the script and vernacular sections (after all they go together) for something like "Official written language = Simple Vernacular Chinese" meaning the other template can be converted into "Official spoken language = Mandarin". The coding somehow caused regional languages not to be shown though, which is odd. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox around a bit. I didn't want to mess around with the template params too much, so I kept it simple and left the official language as is, and created a new subtype "official written language". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the discussion. Using "dialects" to describe ways of speaking that are mutually intelligible and "languages" for ways of speaking that are not mutually intelligible, does China have an official language or an official dialect? To make parallel with English and America - is the Chinese law similar to specifying English as America's language, or would it be more like specifying the American midwestern (as opposed to southern, New York, Boston, cockney, Australian, etc.) dialect? Readin (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem is, linguists classify Mandarin, Yue, Min Nan, et cetera as separate languages, however the Chinese government classifies them all as "dialects of Chinese". This may be for political reasons, since after all, "A language is a dialect with an army and navy". What is a "language", and what is a "dialect"? On the Yue Chinese and similar articles we essentially explain them as de facto languages, since they are pretty much non-intelligible between one another; however on the China article we would list it within the infobox as the government officially classifies it. The PRC does not recognise Yue, Min and the others as languages. Officially, there is only one "Chinese language", and Modern Standard Mandarin is the officially sanctioned and regulated version of it; all others are pretty much considered unofficial/regional/vulgar, so to speak.

The parallel with English isn't really accurate; American English, British English, Australian English and other varieties are mutually intelligible; as a native Australian English speaker, I can turn on BBC or CNN and understand their varieties of English perfectly fine. However this is not the case for Chinese. "I've already eaten today's dinner" would be "Jīntiān de wǎnfàn wǒ yǐjīng chīguò le" in Standard Mandarin, "Gam1yat6 ge3 maan5faan6 ngo5 ji3ging1 sik6zo2 la3" in Standard Cantonese, and "Kin-á-ji̍t ê àm-pn̄g góa í-king chia̍h-kuè ah" in Taiwanese Hokkien - hearing these by ear alone, and a Mandarin speaker would be completely unable to understand the other two. One might say that they are not dialects but rather languages, but as with many things such an interpretation is disputed. A similar case would be the Ryukyuan languages - officially the Japanese government considers them a "dialect" of Japanese, even though most Japanese wouldn't be able to understand a single word of Okinawan.

Back to the main topic, despite that a person like me, who speaks the Beijing dialect of Mandarin, would be unable to verbally communicate with someone who speaks, say, Gan Chinese, this would not be the case with written Chinese, as Vernacular Chinese is used regardless of spoken dialect. This is why I was initially opposed to equating "Mandarin" with the sole official language, as Vernacular Chinese pretty much acts as a de facto official written language, separate from the spoken varieties of Chinese. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I might have to clarify a few things, since I assume some people might get confused over the whole linguistics issue. (TL;DR full speed ahead.) The current linguistic situation in China is the result of decades of government policy, which started from the ROC era, and was employed in full force during PRC rule. Here I am referring to a) the promotion of Mandarin as the national (spoken) language, and b) the development of the modern vernacular writing system.

It was decided from the Kuomintang era of the ROC that Mandarin was to be promoted as "national language" (國語), since it was thought that linguistic disunity was a major obstacle to nation-building (建國), however due to Japanese invasions here, communist uprisings there, and Soviet and Tibetan raids everywhere else, they didn't really have the time to be worried about what language people should be speaking. Following the rise of the PRC, Standard Mandarin was promoted as the standard spoken language by the government; something similar occured on Taiwan by the KMT there, and in Singapore following Lee Kwan Yew's linguistic policies.

Whilst spoken varieties continue to exist, Chinese is generally written in only one way, on the formal level at least. In Taiwan, many people speak Taiwanese Hokkien, but outside of Facebook, SMS, film subtitles and music video karaoke, who uses Written Hokkien? Essentially no one; official communication is done entirely in Vernacular Chinese. There are many in Taiwan who don't speak a word of Mandarin (such as the elderly), yet they are still able to write in Vernacular Chinese. The same applies to people in Hong Kong who only speak Cantonese, people from Singapore and Malaysia who speak Straits Hokkien, and the people from mainland China who speak some vague regional dialect of Mandarin. Vernacular Chinese was developed and endorsed by intellectuals and the ROC government following the May Fourth Movement to promote literacy, since Classical Chinese is a clusterfuck of a writing form to learn especially for the peasant class. Whilst everyone was writing the same way, they were still speaking in different tongues; in the early 1960s, the PRC government decided that, to promote linguistic unity (and to continue where the Kuomintang left off), they would promote Mandarin based on the Beijing dialect as official, and discourage the use of other dialects; hence why today people in mainland China regard the use of dialects as something "dirty" or "uneducated". The policies regarding spoken and written language are separate from one another and had different goals. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 18:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Just be bold and change it. I don't see how this is contentious to anyone with knowledge of Chinese language(s). LK (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already done what I wanted to do. I thought I needed to justify it here, because these are the kinds of silly things that always seem to start loleditwars, from experiences I've seen in the past. Anything linguistics-related is always a nationalism-hotbed. Now, if anyone wants to contest what I've done, I'll just point them to the massive TL;DR on the talk page. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Article rename proposal

See article rename proposal here: Talk:China#Requested_move_August_2011 --Noleander (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That discussion is now archived at Talk:Chinese civilization. It took me awhile to figure it out. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a user at 203.145.92.164 and similar IP addresses have been repeatedly making the same edit that's been flagged as "trolling" by other editors. An APNIC query shows the addresses trace to a residence in Hunghom, Hong Kong. Details and the owners' names are available through searching in the previous link. I would suggest asking for admin help if the issue persists.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The entire ISP would have to be blocked because they use a rotating IP caching proxy. It's been done before when that user was systematically hitting hundreds of articles but it isn't worth doing for simple talk page disruption. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Ok - I assume that means WP:3RR won't apply here? 15:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by White whirlwind (talk • contribs)

The IP actually traces to the address of the telecom office, and the names given are those of the telecom's sysadmins in charge of managing the IPs. I don't think 3RR applies explicitly to talk-pages, and if the IP user is doing all that reversion simply to get their voice heard, then let's hear it and respond to it directly, as I see we've now done below. Deryck C. 23:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Banned users have no voice to be heard. They can be reverted by anyone as many times as necessary. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:China which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 14:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That discussion is now archived at Talk:Chinese civilization. It took me awhile to figure it out. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hbdragon88 may i know where the archive is now located? 119.236.141.26 (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Chinese civilization - though the move discussion has now been archived to Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive_26#Requested_move_August_2011. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 116.49.131.73 (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

First I don't understand why the closing admin had decided in this way. The community were clearly very divided. It should certainly be closed as no concensus. Second articles should follow Wikipedia rules and conventions. If anything as such has to be changed, the rules and conventions should be changed before the articles are changed. All China-related articles have now become very confusing. If nothing is done to undo the mess the problem will have to be brought to the ArbCom. 119.236.141.26 (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Because of the complexity of the move request there were three closing admins, not one. Their discussion is here. Their closing statements are at the top of the move, at the link given above. I suggest you read their statements to understand why the move was agreed. I would disagree it has made things confusing: quite the opposite as the article now at China is much better, and much clearer, than what was there before.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

China space superpower

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: China has successfully launched an experimental module Tiangong 1 (Heavenly Palace) as the first step in the Asian giant to build a space station and put it alongside the United States and Russia. Heavenly Palace was launched from the Gobi desert, in space control center in Beijing attended by Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao. China space superpower. 93.137.41.15 (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Chinese nationalist, but China won't become a superpower until at least 2030, and I'm personally banking on 2050, and if the latest, 2075-85... at least by 2200. China isn't close to Superpower level yet, not really close at all... esp. not yet in space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

the way they're going now by 2030 China will be destroyed

WP:NOTFORUM. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

Please change "The first unified Chinese state was established by Qin Shi Huang of the Qin state in 221 BC." to "Qin Shi Huang of the Qin State reunified China as the first imperial dynasty in 221 BC".

Because Qin is not the first dynasty that ever united China, Xia\Shang\Zhou had united China before Qin, although not under the same imperial system viewed by modern concept. On the other hand, it seems wrong if we say China had been being under disunited situation, beacuse The founder of Xian/Shang/Zhou conquered the whole China at the time and assigned their supporters/family memebers as the heads of reginoal states (like the state governor, though they had more independent authority than those under imperial system later on),and the founders' heirs were the unique kings(or emporers) over other dukes for many generations (until the regional/State dukes became more powerful later when entering the Sring and Autum period).

Welcome any kind of different opinions to my email (Redacted), thank you!

Pumpkin414 (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tajikistan land handover

On 20 september 2011 Tajikistan handover 1158km² of land to China in a low key ceremony to settle an old border dispute. This was approved by the Tajikistan parliament on 12 january 2011.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20111004000073&cid=1101

http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/china-expands-by-1158-sq-km-from-tajikistan.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.172.168 (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)